Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Why Kevin Shattenkirk Will Soon be Rangers Salary-Cap Casualty


Phil

Recommended Posts

We can’t invest $7m per for 7 years in another wing. Put Kreider on one of top 2 lines so he gets off to good start. He should be an attractive trade target for a team looking to make a deep run.

 

He would definitely be a top target at this deadline, no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He would definitely be a top target at this deadline, no doubt.

 

Absolutely he would be.

I don’t understand why he isn’t a top target now. I’d rather have 82 games of him than 25 and wonder if he’ll find chemistry and be productive in a short time span. And his salary and cap hit aren’t prohibitive. And I don’t think the price of getting him now vs later will be hugely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely he would be.

I don’t understand why he isn’t a top target now. I’d rather have 82 games of him than 25 and wonder if he’ll find chemistry and be productive in a short time span. And his salary and cap hit aren’t prohibitive. And I don’t think the price of getting him now vs later will be hugely different.

 

I don't think there's any reason not to think he's a top target right now. Colorado didn't want him for the 16th overall, and that's fine, it doesn't mean nobody wants him. But the Rangers haven't spoken to him because they can't afford him ATM. No matter what his contract is, they can't afford it. Until the defensive situation is resolved, Kreider is on the back burner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you choose to ignore or not view these points as evidence that he isn’t in the long-term plan, doesn’t make it so. And that’s aside from the fact that it’s hard to see them finding the kind of money they’ll need to sign him. And not to mention, his contract wouldn’t kick in till next year, when he’s 29, so they’d be paying a guy who isn’t elite into the age 34-36 range, which they shouldn’t do.

 

As for not talking numbers, we all have a good idea as to where they’re going to be more or less. Gorton knows roughly what it will cost to keep him around and it’s very likely to be a cost prohibitive number in dollars and term.

 

Knowing that, plus his age, plus their cap situation, plus him being made available, plus no negotiation, plus the many articles and comments from the media IS evidence that you base an assertion of him not being in the plan long-term upon. Just because there’s no smoking gun doesn’t mean those pieces don’t add up to that conclusion potentially.

 

As for the date of January 1, you may be right on that, but I do believe that only applies to players on 1 year deals. He’s not on a 1 year deal, and being in the last year of a deal doesn’t qualify as that. And you can only sign an extension in the final year of your current deal.

 

Sorry dude, but I think you're jumping a step or two to actually draw the conclusion that Kreider isn't in the plan. It's starting to feel that way, and I know there was a single report saying they'd rather have this tidied up before camp, but it's by no means concrete. The team hasn't got a reason to rush this; they've got him under team control for another year. They've got no replacement. They've got no sense of his actual contract demands. They've probably got no true suitors based on current cap realities. And, given the last few months, they may want to see what they've actually got on hand with this team before forcing the issue.

 

To say he's a trade target? Last year of the contract, probably on a team that will struggle to get to 80 points, probably up there on the list of most attractive trade pieces on a team with a GM that's not shy to make moves. Very fair.

To say he's not in the plan? Eh. Need a few more pieces to come into play before that's a fair statement.

 

I also don't think it fair to look at the situation as a binary - either part or not. It's almost assuredly based on offers on the table - trade and contract, I reckon - and the team's relative assessment of likelihood of success. Very gray variables.

 

And I’ll say this logically.

 

Ignoring what I present, do you really want him in the fold for the next 7-8 season at a number like $6.5 million per or better? Can you not see that as something that is potentially disastrous?

 

On top of that, all of the media speculation surrounding him, which comes from guys who are way more plugged into the league and it’s teams than we are, should lead you to believe that a deal involving him is more than likely. While it’s true that they may not be dealing him now, it’s hard to see him being here in 6-7 months.

This is all a logical conclusion based on facts, all of which indicate that keeping him around log-term isn’t really a priority for them and is something they aren’t too likely to do. Negotiation aside, if they had the idea in their head that they’d like to keep him, based on your point of not formally getting his asking price even though they know the range , don’t you think they’d at least ask so that they can maybe maneuver to start getting near a position to be able to do that?

 

Now at this point I will agree that they’ve resigned themselves to going into the season with no extension in place, and they will probably just let it ride and wind up revisiting things at a later date.

 

But I don’t see how you can say it’s pure speculation. There’s too much clearly apparent stuff that indicates he’s not going to be in Rangerstown for much longer.

 

I've been throwing around a hypothetical in my head here - what if he wants less the Anders Lee deal and more the Dustin Brown deal? What if instead of 7/49, it was...8/44? He could still get around 21M in the first three years of the deal, and it would pay him through his age 36 season at a rate that's not too bad. What's a 34/35 year old Chris Kreider like? If he can still get 35 points and be a netfront presence, he's probably still tradeable/serviceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you choose to ignore or not view these points as evidence that he isn’t in the long-term plan, doesn’t make it so. And that’s aside from the fact that it’s hard to see them finding the kind of money they’ll need to sign him. And not to mention, his contract wouldn’t kick in till next year, when he’s 29, so they’d be paying a guy who isn’t elite into the age 34-36 range, which they shouldn’t do.

 

As for not talking numbers, we all have a good idea as to where they’re going to be more or less. Gorton knows roughly what it will cost to keep him around and it’s very likely to be a cost prohibitive number in dollars and term.

 

Knowing that, plus his age, plus their cap situation, plus him being made available, plus no negotiation, plus the many articles and comments from the media IS evidence that you base an assertion of him not being in the plan long-term upon. Just because there’s no smoking gun doesn’t mean those pieces don’t add up to that conclusion potentially.

 

As for the date of January 1, you may be right on that, but I do believe that only applies to players on 1 year deals. He’s not on a 1 year deal, and being in the last year of a deal doesn’t qualify as that. And you can only sign an extension in the final year of your current deal.

 

And I’ll say this logically.

 

Ignoring what I present, do you really want him in the fold for the next 7-8 season at a number like $6.5 million per or better? Can you not see that as something that is potentially disastrous?

 

On top of that, all of the media speculation surrounding him, which comes from guys who are way more plugged into the league and it’s teams than we are, should lead you to believe that a deal involving him is more than likely. While it’s true that they may not be dealing him now, it’s hard to see him being here in 6-7 months.

This is all a logical conclusion based on facts, all of which indicate that keeping him around log-term isn’t really a priority for them and is something they aren’t too likely to do. Negotiation aside, if they had the idea in their head that they’d like to keep him, based on your point of not formally getting his asking price even though they know the range , don’t you think they’d at least ask so that they can maybe maneuver to start getting near a position to be able to do that?

 

Now at this point I will agree that they’ve resigned themselves to going into the season with no extension in place, and they will probably just let it ride and wind up revisiting things at a later date.

 

But I don’t see how you can say it’s pure speculation. There’s too much clearly apparent stuff that indicates he’s not going to be in Rangerstown for much longer.

 

Next year, a lot of money comes off the books, pending any buy outs, they will have almost $21M in cap space next year, with Kreider being the only big contract. Again, they shop players, doesn't mean that they don't see him fitting in with the team. Its more of a cap casualty than not seeing him as a fit for the team, which is my entire argument. And again, he can't sign anything yet, which is why Lundqvist's wasn't official until like December, so teams will take care of the immediate things prior to the start of the season, and that isn't amongst their top things right now. Like I said, there aren't negotiations in the summer for the following year because anything can happen. And also, trading him right now makes no sense, your not getting anything for him at this point, thats why there are very few big trades this time of the year.

 

Im saying its pure speculation because no one has sid that he doesn't fit into their plans. If they were actively shopping him, Brooks would have come out with what they are looking for, especially right now, or would have written a piece saying he doesn't fit in with this team, which is untrue because he plays Quins style of play. What is being said is that because of what he will make that its an issue, which is totally different from saying he is being moved because they don't see him as a fit for the team. Do you honestly think that they couldn't get a 2nd plus or possibly 1st rounder for him at the draft if they were actively shopping him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's any reason not to think he's a top target right now. Colorado didn't want him for the 16th overall, and that's fine, it doesn't mean nobody wants him. But the Rangers haven't spoken to him because they can't afford him ATM. No matter what his contract is, they can't afford it. Until the defensive situation is resolved, Kreider is on the back burner.

 

Sorry dude, but I think you're jumping a step or two to actually draw the conclusion that Kreider isn't in the plan. It's starting to feel that way, and I know there was a single report saying they'd rather have this tidied up before camp, but it's by no means concrete. The team hasn't got a reason to rush this; they've got him under team control for another year. They've got no replacement. They've got no sense of his actual contract demands. They've probably got no true suitors based on current cap realities. And, given the last few months, they may want to see what they've actually got on hand with this team before forcing the issue.

 

To say he's a trade target? Last year of the contract, probably on a team that will struggle to get to 80 points, probably up there on the list of most attractive trade pieces on a team with a GM that's not shy to make moves. Very fair.

To say he's not in the plan? Eh. Need a few more pieces to come into play before that's a fair statement.

 

I also don't think it fair to look at the situation as a binary - either part or not. It's almost assuredly based on offers on the table - trade and contract, I reckon - and the team's relative assessment of likelihood of success. Very gray variables.

 

 

 

I've been throwing around a hypothetical in my head here - what if he wants less the Anders Lee deal and more the Dustin Brown deal? What if instead of 7/49, it was...8/44? He could still get around 21M in the first three years of the deal, and it would pay him through his age 36 season at a rate that's not too bad. What's a 34/35 year old Chris Kreider like? If he can still get 35 points and be a netfront presence, he's probably still tradeable/serviceable.

 

 

These two posts are exactly what I have been arguing this entire post. They will have over $20M next summer, pending any buyouts, and Kreider is the only high priced player they would need to sign. They issue is this year if they can't make any moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two posts are exactly what I have been arguing this entire post. They will have over $20M next summer, pending any buyouts, and Kreider is the only high priced player they would need to sign. They issue is this year if they can't make any moves.

 

Not to be a downer, but they'll have more like $12.5M next summer. Closer to 10 if all bonuses hit, closer to 13 if they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next year, a lot of money comes off the books, pending any buy outs, they will have almost $21M in cap space next year, with Kreider being the only big contract. Again, they shop players, doesn't mean that they don't see him fitting in with the team. Its more of a cap casualty than not seeing him as a fit for the team, which is my entire argument. And again, he can't sign anything yet, which is why Lundqvist's wasn't official until like December, so teams will take care of the immediate things prior to the start of the season, and that isn't amongst their top things right now. Like I said, there aren't negotiations in the summer for the following year because anything can happen. And also, trading him right now makes no sense, your not getting anything for him at this point, thats why there are very few big trades this time of the year.

 

Im saying its pure speculation because no one has sid that he doesn't fit into their plans. If they were actively shopping him, Brooks would have come out with what they are looking for, especially right now, or would have written a piece saying he doesn't fit in with this team, which is untrue because he plays Quins style of play. What is being said is that because of what he will make that its an issue, which is totally different from saying he is being moved because they don't see him as a fit for the team. Do you honestly think that they couldn't get a 2nd plus or possibly 1st rounder for him at the draft if they were actively shopping him?

 

You’re still ignoring the obvious points on him, and what they really represent.

 

They’re not going to say anything publicly regarding his standing or status internally, number 1.

They tried to trade him number 2. You don’t trade guys if they’re key to your plan. How hard they shopped him is almost irrelevant. If he were really a huge piece of the puzzle in their minds, they wouldn’t consider it.

 

And the biggest one. Number 3. The fact that they haven’t made any attempt to negotiate.

 

What’s the biggest indication that a guy isn’t really a huge piece for you moving forward when he’s coming up on needing a new contract?

I’d say it’s not pursuing him with a new contract.

 

And it has nothing to do with them not wanting him.

It’s economic. I’ve agreed with you that it’s about the investment they’d have to make.

 

If you feel it’s speculation, that’s fine. It’s all speculation if we don’t know for sure which almost never happens. But the indicators are all there. It’s a reasonable conclusion that he’s more likely at this point to be dealt than extended. And it’s not based on nothing.

 

I also agree at this point that it appears they’ve changed their previously stated position on him in that they now seem comfortable with going into the season without a contract extension in place and that they will probably not deal him now.

 

But I think come deadline time in February, he’s a goner. And it could still happen before then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feelings too

 

And actually I think he’ll go elsewhere and really excel for the next few seasons. But then he’ll decline.

 

Not sure why you feel so strongly that he's going to decline quickly. Net front guys don't always decline like that... Even guys that played in more a physical era showed that they could still score, like Kreider, in front of the net in their early to mid 30's. Holmstrom, Pavelski, LeClair, Ciccarelli...all those guys did it and all did most of their damage right in front of the net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re still ignoring the obvious points on him, and what they really represent.

 

They’re not going to say anything publicly regarding his standing or status internally, number 1.

They tried to trade him number 2. You don’t trade guys if they’re key to your plan. How hard they shopped him is almost irrelevant. If he were really a huge piece of the puzzle in their minds, they wouldn’t consider it.

 

And the biggest one. Number 3. The fact that they haven’t made any attempt to negotiate.

 

What’s the biggest indication that a guy isn’t really a huge piece for you moving forward when he’s coming up on needing a new contract?

I’d say it’s not pursuing him with a new contract.

 

And it has nothing to do with them not wanting him.

It’s economic. I’ve agreed with you that it’s about the investment they’d have to make.

 

If you feel it’s speculation, that’s fine. It’s all speculation if we don’t know for sure which almost never happens. But the indicators are all there. It’s a reasonable conclusion that he’s more likely at this point to be dealt than extended. And it’s not based on nothing.

 

I also agree at this point that it appears they’ve changed their previously stated position on him in that they now seem comfortable with going into the season without a contract extension in place and that they will probably not deal him now.

 

But I think come deadline time in February, he’s a goner. And it could still happen before then.

 

I'll give you an alternate scenario: with Panarin and Trouba in the fold, tying up the Kreider deal is simply not a priority over getting the cap worked out. It's not as if even the worst comparables we've seen couldn't fit under the 2020-21 cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you feel so strongly that he's going to decline quickly. Net front guys don't always decline like that... Even guys that played in more a physical era showed that they could still score, like Kreider, in front of the net in their early to mid 30's. Holmstrom, Pavelski, LeClair, Ciccarelli...all those guys did it and all did most of their damage right in front of the net.

 

I'd probably look more at like...a Johan Franzen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two posts are exactly what I have been arguing this entire post. They will have over $20M next summer, pending any buyouts, and Kreider is the only high priced player they would need to sign. They issue is this year if they can't make any moves.

 

 

They’ll have maybe half of that actually.

 

And to your point on the Lundqvist extension, he signed it on December 4 that year. He could have signed it prior. That’s just when they agree to terms

 

And the negotiation with his camp had been going on for a while. Mostly because he was in the plans long-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably look more at like...a Johan Franzen.

 

Maybe...that's not the point though. I'm just saying there is no history that suggests that just because he does most of his damage in front of the net he's going to break-down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They’ll have maybe half of that actually.

 

And to your point on the Lundqvist extension, he signed it on December 4 that year. He could have signed it prior. That’s just when they agree to terms

 

And the negotiation with his camp had been going on for a while. Mostly because he was in the plans long-term.

 

This isn't comparable, though. Lundqvist, at the time he signed the extension, was without question the best keeper in the league, and even with the last two or three seasons, has been far and away the best keeper of the decade. In fact, there are advanced stats arguments to suggest that Henrik Lundqvist was in fact the most valuable player in the NHL at the time.

 

Chris Kreider is not on that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you feel so strongly that he's going to decline quickly. Net front guys don't always decline like that... Even guys that played in more a physical era showed that they could still score, like Kreider, in front of the net in their early to mid 30's. Holmstrom, Pavelski, LeClair, Ciccarelli...all those guys did it and all did most of their damage right in front of the net.

 

He could be an exception.

But he’s be just that, an exception.

 

Most guys in that style don’t age well. That’s the normal trend.

And if he’s one-dimensional at big dollars vs the cap, it isn’t worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't comparable, though. Lundqvist, at the time he signed the extension, was without question the best keeper in the league, and even with the last two or three seasons, has been far and away the best keeper of the decade. In fact, there are advanced stats arguments to suggest that Henrik Lundqvist was in fact the most valuable player in the NHL at the time.

 

Chris Kreider is not on that level.

 

 

You’re 100% right.

 

My point went more towards desire to keep the guy. If it’s there, you make the effort to do it.

 

Right now they’re not with Kreider.

That says something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re 100% right.

 

My point went more towards desire to keep the guy. If it’s there, you make the effort to do it.

 

Right now they’re not with Kreider.

That says something

 

It does say something - either that the Kreider extension has not become a priority since they realized they had cap issues to manage, or that they're much more okay with the idea of Kreider going into the season without a new contract, or that he's in a prove-it year, or that they want to scare him into a lower ask by waiting him out, or a myriad of other things.

 

And again, Hank and Kreider are different. There were no goalies like Hank. There are quite a few Kreiders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry dude, but I think you're jumping a step or two to actually draw the conclusion that Kreider isn't in the plan. It's starting to feel that way, and I know there was a single report saying they'd rather have this tidied up before camp, but it's by no means concrete. The team hasn't got a reason to rush this; they've got him under team control for another year. They've got no replacement. They've got no sense of his actual contract demands. They've probably got no true suitors based on current cap realities. And, given the last few months, they may want to see what they've actually got on hand with this team before forcing the issue.

 

To say he's a trade target? Last year of the contract, probably on a team that will struggle to get to 80 points, probably up there on the list of most attractive trade pieces on a team with a GM that's not shy to make moves. Very fair.

To say he's not in the plan? Eh. Need a few more pieces to come into play before that's a fair statement.

 

I also don't think it fair to look at the situation as a binary - either part or not. It's almost assuredly based on offers on the table - trade and contract, I reckon - and the team's relative assessment of likelihood of success. Very gray variables.

 

 

 

I've been throwing around a hypothetical in my head here - what if he wants less the Anders Lee deal and more the Dustin Brown deal? What if instead of 7/49, it was...8/44? He could still get around 21M in the first three years of the deal, and it would pay him through his age 36 season at a rate that's not too bad. What's a 34/35 year old Chris Kreider like? If he can still get 35 points and be a netfront presence, he's probably still tradeable/serviceable.

 

I mean, that's all well and good - certainly well argued - but I feel all of that went out the window when they tried to flip him for a pick at the draft. You simply don't do that with a player you're planning to commit to long term and that deal basically makes him a cornerstone of the club in the next 7 years. It just seems completely implausible that they were of a mind to flip him at the draft only to turn around and sign him up for 7 years when that didn't work. Unless, of course, he's willing to sign for a considerable discount/shorter term after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been more about trading Kreider since the end of the season. His game drives a guy like me nuts. All that speed, talent and ability, and he uses it only when he feels like it, or so it seems. I still think Kreider's best value right now may be the fact that we could possibly package a bad contract with him for a decent pick in next year's draft.

 

I have absolutely no interest in paying Kreider long term and 7+ million...forget it!

 

A speed player, who's most consistent quality is that he's inconsistent? No way! I say give someone else a shot on the wing, and move on from Kreider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does say something - either that the Kreider extension has not become a priority since they realized they had cap issues to manage, or that they're much more okay with the idea of Kreider going into the season without a new contract, or that he's in a prove-it year, or that they want to scare him into a lower ask by waiting him out, or a myriad of other things.

 

And again, Hank and Kreider are different. There were no goalies like Hank. There are quite a few Kreiders.

 

That something indicates their willingness to part ways with him

Which indicates that he’s not in the plan

 

He could be included in the plan. But at present he’s not and circumstances say that it’s unlikely that will change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, that's all well and good - certainly well argued - but I feel all of that went out the window when they tried to flip him for a pick at the draft. You simply don't do that with a player you're planning to commit to long term and that deal basically makes him a cornerstone of the club in the next 7 years. It just seems completely implausible that they were of a mind to flip him at the draft only to turn around and sign him up for 7 years when that didn't work. Unless, of course, he's willing to sign for a considerable discount/shorter term after the fact.

 

 

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, that's all well and good - certainly well argued - but I feel all of that went out the window when they tried to flip him for a pick at the draft. You simply don't do that with a player you're planning to commit to long term and that deal basically makes him a cornerstone of the club in the next 7 years. It just seems completely implausible that they were of a mind to flip him at the draft only to turn around and sign him up for 7 years when that didn't work. Unless, of course, he's willing to sign for a considerable discount/shorter term after the fact.

 

I'd argue the opposite, actually. You're probably right about the draft, but I think Kreider was way more gone before Panarin came in. With Panarin around, there's probably reason to speculate that Kreider's immediate future is here. There's excitement that this team could make noise. I don't buy it - but I get it.

 

I mean...why trade your obvious deadline sale when he could just be your deadline "buy"?

 

I also think there's a bit of a bully play here. There's a CBA vote in September that will color some of this, there's the push to say "take a cut and be a lifer here", there's the reality that if he's a good forward on a bad team with a rough TDL market coming up, he could be worth more than the pick, and so many more factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd argue the opposite, actually. You're probably right about the draft, but I think Kreider was way more gone before Panarin came in. With Panarin around, there's probably reason to speculate that Kreider's immediate future is here. There's excitement that this team could make noise. I don't buy it - but I get it.

 

I mean...why trade your obvious deadline sale when he could just be your deadline "buy"?

 

I also think there's a bit of a bully play here. There's a CBA vote in September that will color some of this, there's the push to say "take a cut and be a lifer here", there's the reality that if he's a good forward on a bad team with a rough TDL market coming up, he could be worth more than the pick, and so many more factors.

 

No, sorry. I don't buy that at all. I think a lot of fans think that way, but I don't think the FO are having those thoughts.

I could be wrong of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the Kreider situation is as black and white as people think. It's probably somewhere in the middle between keeping him and trading him, and they are rather unsure with how to proceed. In which case, they are gathering as much information as they can for what both avenues look like. If I was in that position, I would want to know A) how much can he get me in a trade?, and B) how much would he cost long term? Then weigh those two things against each other. It seems pretty inaccurate to say for certainty that the Rangers have made a decision in either direction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...